Is fine dining really dead? The restaurant industry is changing, but training remains central
The closure of Table, Bruno Verjus’s Parisian restaurant, has reopened the debate on the future of haute cuisine. But the crisis of a model does not coincide with the crisis of the profession. On the contrary: as the restaurant industry changes, skills, technique, and the ability to adapt are becoming even more important.
"Fine dining is dead."
The phrase with which Bruno Verjus announced the closure of Table has inevitably sparked discussion in the world of gastronomy. After all, it does not come from a marginal voice in the sector. Table is a two-Michelin-starred restaurant that has reached the heights of international dining in recent years. Verjus has announced that December 22, 2026, will be the last day of service. However, his reflection goes beyond the closure of a single restaurant. At the center is the sustainability of a certain model of haute cuisine: very long and complex experiences, significant organizational structures, exceptional raw materials, and prices that make these restaurants accessible to a necessarily limited segment of the public. Verjus does not seem to want to give up cooking. Rather, he wants to imagine a different way of practicing it: more accessible, less tied to the traditional rituals of fine dining. And it is probably from here that it is worth starting.
It is not cooking that is dying. A model is changing
Reducing the debate to the question "is fine dining alive or dead?" risks being of little use. The restaurant industry has always been a sector in transformation.
Consumption is changing, guest expectations are changing, and economic and organizational models are changing. Even the concept of gastronomic luxury is changing.
Alongside great restaurants, contemporary bistros, sophisticated bakeries, artisan workshops, casual dining formats, hotel dining, high-end catering, gastronomic consulting, and new entrepreneurial projects continue to develop. Even within haute cuisine, different formulas are being sought: less ritual, more agile menus, greater attention to economic and environmental sustainability, and a more direct relationship with products, the territory, and the customer. The profession, therefore, is not disappearing.
It is transforming.
And when a profession becomes more complex, the answer can hardly be less preparation.
Technique is not the end goal. It is the starting point
There is a misunderstanding that often accompanies the debate on gastronomic training: the idea that studying cooking means learning a rigid set of recipes or preparing exclusively to work in a starred restaurant. Professional training should do exactly the opposite. It should build the foundations that allow a professional to operate in different contexts.
Knowing cooking techniques. Understanding raw materials. Knowing how to organize a line. Managing time and preparations. Correctly applying food safety regulations. Learning to work within a brigade. And then developing precision, speed, observation skills, and method. A recipe can change.
An acquired technique, however, becomes a tool.
And it is through these tools that a professional can adapt to different cuisines, chefs, formats, and restaurant models.
From knowing how to execute to knowing how to understand
The change in the restaurant industry is also making another evolution evident. The contemporary professional is not only asked to execute. It is necessary to understand what one is doing. This means knowing the product and respecting it, but also understanding yields, waste, and seasonality. It means knowing how to fit into an organization, communicate with a brigade, and progressively take on responsibilities. It also means understanding that a professional kitchen is also a business.
Food cost, work organization, the sustainability of preparations, procurement, and resource management are not elements extraneous to gastronomic creativity. They are what allow an idea to function in reality. Creativity without technique risks remaining an intuition. Technique without the ability to interpret change, on the other hand, risks becoming simple execution.
Training serves to bring both dimensions together.
Verjus also speaks of people, not just dishes
There is a particularly interesting aspect to Bruno Verjus's story. A few months before announcing the closure of Table, while talking about his own cuisine, the chef had focused precisely on how the team functions. The brigade was described through the metaphor of jazz: professionals who possess a common technique but who, precisely thanks to that preparation, can listen to each other, react, and interpret.
It is a vision very distant from the image of the kitchen as a place where one simply executes orders and recipes.
And it is perhaps one of the most interesting elements for those who today are thinking of undertaking this profession. Preparation should not produce professionals who are all the same.
It should provide a common language solid enough to allow, over time, the development of one's own identity.
Training for a sector we do not yet fully know
Those who start a professional path today could work in very different settings in the coming years. A gastronomic restaurant. An international hotel. A contemporary pastry shop. A bread-making workshop. An accommodation facility. A catering company. One's own entrepreneurial project. Or in formats that are only just beginning to emerge today. For this reason, it would be limiting to prepare a student for only one restaurant model.
The goal must be to build transferable skills.
Technique and method, certainly. But also the ability to work with other professionals, understand an organization, deal with real standards, and continue to learn once having entered the sector. It is also for this reason that the relationship between school and the world of work remains central.
The classroom and the lab allow for the acquisition and consolidation of skills. Engagement with active professionals brings what is really happening in the sector into the training. Finally, the internship allows one to measure oneself against the timing, responsibilities, and dynamics of a professional kitchen.
The future of the restaurant industry requires more prepared professionals, not fewer
Perhaps the point is not to determine if Bruno Verjus is right when he declares fine dining dead. His decision signals something that deserves attention: one of the models that have defined high-end dining in recent decades is being questioned today even by those who have reached its heights.
But the change in that model does not make the skills upon which it was built superfluous. Technique, knowledge, organization, gastronomic culture, the ability to work with people, and respect for raw materials will continue to be necessary even if the places and ways in which they are applied change. Others will likely be needed. The ability to understand the economic sustainability of a project. Greater attention to waste. Knowledge of different restaurant models. The ability to communicate with international clients. A broader vision of hospitality. For a gastronomic training school, this transformation therefore does not represent a reason to teach less. It represents an extra responsibility.
Preparing professionals not to replicate the restaurant industry of yesterday, but to have the tools necessary to build that of tomorrow.
Training today to work in the restaurant industry of tomorrow
Congusto Institute develops Higher Education courses in Cooking, Pastry, and Bread-making in Milan, with a predominantly practical approach, lecturers and professionals active in the sector, and curricular internship paths.
